Love hearing Cutrone! I think that contemporary Marxists have to uphold a revolutionary defeatist position, but one which recognizes and is unsatisfied by its groundlessness. Today's revolutionary defeatism recognizes revolutionary defeatism can only truly be articulated from the standpoint of a communist party. It's a stance that sparks within us a search for a resolution to the question of the reconstitution of the party. You can't merely affirm revolutionary defeatism as if it were a political position among other, opposed opinions. It must be a call for thinking and action.
On this occasion i think CC was a little unclear, almost as if a position is irrelevant? Its true as you point out RD remains unobtainable /unsatisfied at present and yes it really is more a call for thinking and action if it is to be possibly satisfied. However it also has an immediate purpose of political clarification that affects the leftists deeply and exposes them ? If they fail to oppose their own elites in a period of war they have completely negated the requirement of the DoP ? That is a devastating confirmation of their political outlook and its consequences? No hiding place after declaring to side with ones own elites ?
The point towards the end about never losing sight of the central task is a very important one. Far too often, a pseudo-Marxist invocation of "material conditions" is used to excuse laziness, conservatism and tailism e.g. refusing to break with the Democrats, or for that matter, Doug's frustrating experiences in the antiwar movement. We proceed from objective requirements, not whether the presently existing balance of forces is in our favor. But circumstances _never_ spontaneously start out in our favor, so that line of argument is clearly motivated reasoning. There is an unavoidable element of "build it and they will come" to socialist politics that is cynically dismissed as voluntarism by a "pragmatic" (read: conservative) subspecies of social democrat. So when it comes to Ukraine, I actually don't think a pacifist line is inappropriate, so long as it's explained that the conflict as the outcome of a geopolitical crisis that the capitalist system inevitably generates, which makes antiwar politics inseparable from class struggle. I mean, easier said than done, obviously, but that has to be the starting point. And it has to be said, can we please stop with conflating anti-imperialism with "pro-Putin"? I recognize that might describe some sad mutation of Stalinist popular front anti-war politics a la Grayzone, but especially under present circumstances, it's not a responsible move to make.
Have you guys read Machiavelli???? Like Chris is starting to make a bit more sense here. He's right that wars aren't explained well by Marx. Its a multi faceted thing. And it's closer to a breakdown. But each conflict tends to have its own context. But it's not a pseudo politics. It IS politics
When my son Benjamin took a course at the U of O on anti-capitalism the instructor conflated Polanyi with Marx. If I were to talk of Polyani it would be to critique Polanyi first, and then to bring forward similarities between Polyani and Marx.
@@sublationmedia I am currently listening to the first of a series of lectures he recorded back inthe 80s or 90s. And he was also called the Bill Hicks of philosophers. High praise.
I respect Cutrone, but I can't help thinking he constantly severs theory and praxis. Do people start their political consciousness with a full fledged theory of capital?
@@johnryan3913 Positing a vision of socialism based on today's bourgeois morality is a dead end. It's one of the big theoretical leaps made by Marx - morals & notions of justice arise from the relations/forces of production in a given era. If you're interested, research Marx's critique of Proudon
Question you have to ask is, once socialism is truly achieved and the contradictions that characterise class society no longer operate, how would such a thing as morality even arise? Things like thou shalt not steal or covet thy neighbour's waifu have no social function when production is centred on use-value and the state/family has withered away.
@@Rd.Lux_1871 The fact we form emotional attachments to people and things means you will never see these boundaries break down. Things that cost me nothing and have no social status connected to them will be just as precious, and if that happens to be my grandmothers family heirloom Waifu, it don't matter what the economic system I exist in happens to be if I have an attachment to that Waifu. You're an enemy if you want to take it away. Capitalism and personal property, etc... These of course increase the incidence of these game theoretic exchanges. But unless you can both eliminate material scarcity (Star Trek Replicators) and somehow explain away survival instincts asserting themselves as a distributed effect... I don't think a serious experiment is happening.
Doug and Chris, can you both please research & advocate for full intellectual property (IP) abolition? This is the most important activist aim for working class people! A just economy (& most leftist projects) has very little chance without first abolishing IP. IP is the most severe & oppressive tool of the rich & powerful. Please see the work of Stephan Kinsella, Michele Boldrin, & David K. Levine. These are the best experts on intellectual property in the world. Everyone who cares about seriously improving things for humanity needs to know what IP abolition is about.
IP laws make no sense from either left or right politics. The ‘property’ in intellectual property is a false term used for propaganda purposes. Intellectual property is not property in any sense. It’s monopoly. IP actually stifles innovation & creativity. And IP seriously screws up our economy & stacks it for the rich & powerful more than any other tool (especially IP with digital tech and the internet). IP abolition is the most important aim to liberate artists, programmers, inventors, etc. and make them all better off financially.
IP provides for censorship. IP is the main component of cultural control, propaganda, & advertising. Copyright does not just monopolize art- copyright also monopolizes all text, video, audio, photos, images, software & websites. And patents monopolize important aspects of media infrastructure. Therefore, IP is the main component which allows media conglomerates to “manufacture consent”.
The 2008 economics book ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’ and the 2001 essay ‘Against Intellectual Property’ are both as important as Marx’s ‘Capital’! Each has nearly flawless argumentation. All leftists need to read both (free online). If you can’t read them now, then write down both titles so you can tell others so they can read them.
And Uniquenameosaurus has two excellent and entertaining videos from April 2021 about IP abolition. Patricia Taxxon has another excellent one from October 2017 about copyright abolition.
@@BabyBowDingBall it’s Cutrone and Platypus buying access to air time. Sublation will also, no doubt, start publishing Platypus authors very soon. Pay to play-exactly what the original owners of Zero books accused Lain of.
The accusation from the original Zer0 Books team was NOT that I received financial backing from the Paltypus Affiliated Society, but that we were publishing vanity books. That is, we were getting authors to pay for the publication of their books, and would publish anyone who paid. That is NOT true. However, when I inherited Zer0 Books the policy was to include vanity books of a certain caliber in the publication schedule. The original team had done so as well. I ended that practice at Zer0. As for my financial investors I am not receiving any money from the Platypus Affiliated Society as an organization. I did, however, arrange to publish Cutrone's next book when I was at Zer0 and will be publishing him at Sublation instead. I am also working with some Platypus Affiliated Society members, exploiting their labor, to create a magazine. I'm also working with Jacobin authors, with British podcasters, with people who write for the Black Agenda report, and a few others. We will NOT be publishing vanity books at Sublation.
I agree that capitalism is somewhat a part of the equation of any war. But that's because capitalism is a global system that most countries (upwards of 90%) use. I find this take to be unbelievably reductionist. This is about democracy vs authoritarianism. Ukraine has been fighting for decades upon decades to try to achieve a democratic state. They've been brutally oppressed by Russia for generations, if not longer. To boil it down to "which kind of capitalism you want to back" is so dehumanising and frankly weird to assess in this way. It's actually reflective of the ideological far right who back Putin. They back him from the angle that he represents an anti-liberal stance. He represents an authoritarian Christian in a warped way so they want him to win on that basis. Since your religion is Marxism of course this is about the capitalism you can tolerate more. Not about the historical struggles of a nation that has been fighting for it's freedom for hundreds of years. And people wonder why people are against marxists 🙄. There's too much bloviating over theory and shit that's never going to happen. It's always "how do we get from A to B to C to D" and not how do we get from "A to B in a practical well thought out way"
90% of countries don't use capitalism, 100% of countries are governed by capitalism. You may think that the goal of the marxist will never happen but to the marxist that goal is the only relevant thing, anything else is not marxism or socialism.
Cutrone has to be one of the most articulate people I’ve ever seen. Always excited when he’s on the pod.
This one is particularly sharp and of the moment. Thanks Doug and Chris, I needed this today.
Cutrone should be a permanent host in the show. Would gladly listen to Doug and Chris everyday
Love hearing Cutrone! I think that contemporary Marxists have to uphold a revolutionary defeatist position, but one which recognizes and is unsatisfied by its groundlessness. Today's revolutionary defeatism recognizes revolutionary defeatism can only truly be articulated from the standpoint of a communist party. It's a stance that sparks within us a search for a resolution to the question of the reconstitution of the party. You can't merely affirm revolutionary defeatism as if it were a political position among other, opposed opinions. It must be a call for thinking and action.
On this occasion i think CC was a little unclear, almost as if a position is irrelevant? Its true as you point out RD remains unobtainable /unsatisfied at present and yes it really is more a call for thinking and action if it is to be possibly satisfied. However it also has an immediate purpose of political clarification that affects the leftists deeply and exposes them ? If they fail to oppose their own elites in a period of war they have completely negated the requirement of the DoP ? That is a devastating confirmation of their political outlook and its consequences? No hiding place after declaring to side with ones own elites ?
Omg, Cutrone's conclusion is razor sharp! This guy eh!!
Chris Cutrone rules, best guest
The point towards the end about never losing sight of the central task is a very important one. Far too often, a pseudo-Marxist invocation of "material conditions" is used to excuse laziness, conservatism and tailism e.g. refusing to break with the Democrats, or for that matter, Doug's frustrating experiences in the antiwar movement. We proceed from objective requirements, not whether the presently existing balance of forces is in our favor. But circumstances _never_ spontaneously start out in our favor, so that line of argument is clearly motivated reasoning. There is an unavoidable element of "build it and they will come" to socialist politics that is cynically dismissed as voluntarism by a "pragmatic" (read: conservative) subspecies of social democrat.
So when it comes to Ukraine, I actually don't think a pacifist line is inappropriate, so long as it's explained that the conflict as the outcome of a geopolitical crisis that the capitalist system inevitably generates, which makes antiwar politics inseparable from class struggle. I mean, easier said than done, obviously, but that has to be the starting point. And it has to be said, can we please stop with conflating anti-imperialism with "pro-Putin"? I recognize that might describe some sad mutation of Stalinist popular front anti-war politics a la Grayzone, but especially under present circumstances, it's not a responsible move to make.
100% on every point.
Great conversation.
30:15 Defeatism and Class Struggle
More like this please.
Have you guys read Machiavelli????
Like Chris is starting to make a bit more sense here. He's right that wars aren't explained well by Marx. Its a multi faceted thing. And it's closer to a breakdown. But each conflict tends to have its own context.
But it's not a pseudo politics. It IS politics
excellent
Love doug's shirt
would be cool to see a debate between chris and Matt Mcmanus mediated by doug.
Doug, any chance to cover the works of Karl Polanyi? I never hear his name on this channel any specific reason?
When my son Benjamin took a course at the U of O on anti-capitalism the instructor conflated Polanyi with Marx. If I were to talk of Polyani it would be to critique Polanyi first, and then to bring forward similarities between Polyani and Marx.
Doug, who is the speaker who opens your videos with the "death of god" line? Thanks.
Rick Roderick. He's the best. You should look him up.
@@sublationmedia Thanks Doug. I've heard the name before. Will do.
@@sublationmedia I am currently listening to the first of a series of lectures he recorded back inthe 80s or 90s. And he was also called the Bill Hicks of philosophers. High praise.
You can see Zizek using many of Roderick's motifs and also some of Roderick's style.
I respect Cutrone, but I can't help thinking he constantly severs theory and praxis. Do people start their political consciousness with a full fledged theory of capital?
the only version of the platypus entryist conspiracies that worked was usurping the contents of doug’s head.
Gotta point out that the IMT has been explicit about avoiding the "taking sides" problem
Pog
...you know...
How does Chris Cutrone hold that socialism is not about morals or justice and yet call Putin a criminal?
He's a criminal as per bourgeois law.
I can't see an amoral socialism personally.
@@johnryan3913 Positing a vision of socialism based on today's bourgeois morality is a dead end. It's one of the big theoretical leaps made by Marx - morals & notions of justice arise from the relations/forces of production in a given era. If you're interested, research Marx's critique of Proudon
Question you have to ask is, once socialism is truly achieved and the contradictions that characterise class society no longer operate, how would such a thing as morality even arise? Things like thou shalt not steal or covet thy neighbour's waifu have no social function when production is centred on use-value and the state/family has withered away.
@@Rd.Lux_1871 The fact we form emotional attachments to people and things means you will never see these boundaries break down. Things that cost me nothing and have no social status connected to them will be just as precious, and if that happens to be my grandmothers family heirloom Waifu, it don't matter what the economic system I exist in happens to be if I have an attachment to that Waifu. You're an enemy if you want to take it away.
Capitalism and personal property, etc... These of course increase the incidence of these game theoretic exchanges. But unless you can both eliminate material scarcity (Star Trek Replicators) and somehow explain away survival instincts asserting themselves as a distributed effect... I don't think a serious experiment is happening.
It will there are enough college professors out there to make it happen
Chris veering dangerously close to bordiga's idiotic stance on anti fascism
Yeah,I sense that too but could you explain a bit?
You mean a princpled Marxist postion.
@@johnryan3913 Chris doesn't want to ally with one side of the capitalist ruling class against another
Cutrone is able to jump from insights to nonsense with an incredible agility
Doug and Chris, can you both please research & advocate for full intellectual property (IP) abolition? This is the most important activist aim for working class people! A just economy (& most leftist projects) has very little chance without first abolishing IP. IP is the most severe & oppressive tool of the rich & powerful.
Please see the work of Stephan Kinsella, Michele Boldrin, & David K. Levine. These are the best experts on intellectual property in the world. Everyone who cares about seriously improving things for humanity needs to know what IP abolition is about.
IP laws make no sense from either left or right politics. The ‘property’ in intellectual property is a false term used for propaganda purposes. Intellectual property is not property in any sense. It’s monopoly. IP actually stifles innovation & creativity. And IP seriously screws up our economy & stacks it for the rich & powerful more than any other tool (especially IP with digital tech and the internet). IP abolition is the most important aim to liberate artists, programmers, inventors, etc. and make them all better off financially.
All 4 types of IP must be fully abolished in any & all countries ASAP: patents, copyright, trademarks & trade secrets.
IP provides for censorship. IP is the main component of cultural control, propaganda, & advertising. Copyright does not just monopolize art- copyright also monopolizes all text, video, audio, photos, images, software & websites. And patents monopolize important aspects of media infrastructure. Therefore, IP is the main component which allows media conglomerates to “manufacture consent”.
The 2008 economics book ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’ and the 2001 essay ‘Against Intellectual Property’ are both as important as Marx’s ‘Capital’! Each has nearly flawless argumentation. All leftists need to read both (free online). If you can’t read them now, then write down both titles so you can tell others so they can read them.
And Uniquenameosaurus has two excellent and entertaining videos from April 2021 about IP abolition. Patricia Taxxon has another excellent one from October 2017 about copyright abolition.
Is this the video where Doug Lain acknowledges that Cutrone and Platypus members are major financial investors in his publishing project?
good god it appears I have dropped my monocle
@@BabyBowDingBall it’s Cutrone and Platypus buying access to air time. Sublation will also, no doubt, start publishing Platypus authors very soon. Pay to play-exactly what the original owners of Zero books accused Lain of.
@@BabyBowDingBall 🧐 Hahahahaha..ah-ha...
The accusation from the original Zer0 Books team was NOT that I received financial backing from the Paltypus Affiliated Society, but that we were publishing vanity books. That is, we were getting authors to pay for the publication of their books, and would publish anyone who paid. That is NOT true. However, when I inherited Zer0 Books the policy was to include vanity books of a certain caliber in the publication schedule. The original team had done so as well. I ended that practice at Zer0.
As for my financial investors I am not receiving any money from the Platypus Affiliated Society as an organization. I did, however, arrange to publish Cutrone's next book when I was at Zer0 and will be publishing him at Sublation instead. I am also working with some Platypus Affiliated Society members, exploiting their labor, to create a magazine. I'm also working with Jacobin authors, with British podcasters, with people who write for the Black Agenda report, and a few others.
We will NOT be publishing vanity books at Sublation.
@@commentariat As for Cutrone buying access to airtime, that's 100% untrue. He is a popular guest and makes us money when he comes on.
I agree that capitalism is somewhat a part of the equation of any war. But that's because capitalism is a global system that most countries (upwards of 90%) use. I find this take to be unbelievably reductionist.
This is about democracy vs authoritarianism. Ukraine has been fighting for decades upon decades to try to achieve a democratic state. They've been brutally oppressed by Russia for generations, if not longer.
To boil it down to "which kind of capitalism you want to back" is so dehumanising and frankly weird to assess in this way. It's actually reflective of the ideological far right who back Putin. They back him from the angle that he represents an anti-liberal stance. He represents an authoritarian Christian in a warped way so they want him to win on that basis.
Since your religion is Marxism of course this is about the capitalism you can tolerate more. Not about the historical struggles of a nation that has been fighting for it's freedom for hundreds of years.
And people wonder why people are against marxists 🙄. There's too much bloviating over theory and shit that's never going to happen. It's always "how do we get from A to B to C to D" and not how do we get from "A to B in a practical well thought out way"
90% of countries don't use capitalism, 100% of countries are governed by capitalism. You may think that the goal of the marxist will never happen but to the marxist that goal is the only relevant thing, anything else is not marxism or socialism.
@@Ossian-dr1vr okay start your own commune or stfu